….we have this.
CNN’s flash poll, taken immediately after President Trump’s State of the Union Speech showed that 70% of the sample had a “very” or “somewhat” positive reaction to it – 48% in the “very” column – and just 28% reacted negatively.
70% to 28% positive? That’s certainly good news for Mr. Trump, isn’t it?
Before you answer, here is the way the CNN website presented:
In other words, it’s not that President Trump, who has received virtually nothing but negative press from CNN and most other media for a year, got a 70% positive rating for his speech anyway, it is that other speeches did even better.
Or did they?
According to Amber Athey’s article at dailycaller.com…
“We went back to look at the State of the Union address at the beginning of a midterm election year where the president’s party was facing a lot of headwinds. Take a look at this,” CNN’s David Shelley said. “48 percent very positive reaction across the board. Barack Obama at the beginning of 2010, he had 48% very positive reaction. George W. Bush at the beginning of 2006, in his second midterms, 48 percent, very positive.”
Am I missing something here? Is 48% “very positive” a higher number for Barack Obama and George W. Bush than it is for Donald Trump? Or is the entire basis for calling this the lowest in 20 years that Trump, though he had exactly the same percentage of “very positive” ratings, was a bit lower in the “somewhat positive” department?
This isn’t even pathetic. It doesn’t rise to that level.
How can anyone who calls him/herself a journalist work at CNN anymore?